Would real nation building have worked in Iraq in 2003?

[Latro]

@Ryan_Liam

Real nation building wouldn’t of worked in Iraq, because Iran was determined to see it fail.

Of?
Is this manks?

[Steken]

@Ryan_Liam

Real nation building wouldn’t of worked in Iraq, because Iran was determined to see it fail.

What do you mean?

I imagine Iran would much prefer a stable, peaceful, unified Iraqi state to the current mess.

[Ravenman]

My guess is that Iran would prefer to see a country generally closer to its orbit (not necessarily a puppet) as it is today with some level of violence, rather than an unfriendly country at peace.

My hunch is that Iran would probably have done whatever it could to achieve those ends had reconstruction taken a different tack, just as Iran can be very aggressive when it comes to asserting itself to be the prime regional power.

[ralph124c]

Suppose a new dictator (like Saddam Hussein) were to emerge in Iraq? What would be the ramifications? As far as I can see, only ME countries ruled by dictators seem to be stable (Israel excepted). Does democracy work, in places where theocracy is accepted (and desired)?

[Ryan_Liam]

@Steken

What do you mean?

I imagine Iran would much prefer a stable, peaceful, unified Iraqi state to the current mess.

Don’t underestimate the levels of animosity between the US and Iran.

Iran would much prefer a Shiite/Kurd dominated client state under it’s influence than a successful democratic and cohesive Iraqi state under US domination, what surprises me is how the Bush administration were completely blind to this.

[Ramira]

@Ravenman

… rather than an unfriendly country at peace.

This was always an american fantasy

… Iran can be very aggressive when it comes to asserting itself to be the prime regional power.

A very ironic and empty comment coming from nationals of the country that launched the war of aggression on false pretenses against the Iraq.

to neutral parties the Iran does not look like it is asserting itself as ‘the prime regional power’ - it looks paranoid and defensive about the Wahhabite power.

the lenses of the americans are very strange in looking at the region.

[Ryan_Liam]

@ralph124c

Suppose a new dictator (like Saddam Hussein) were to emerge in Iraq? What would be the ramifications? As far as I can see, only ME countries ruled by dictators seem to be stable (Israel excepted). Does democracy work, in places where theocracy is accepted (and desired)?

A new dictator would be the equivalent of just kicking the can down the road. Help building institutions which promote power sharing and reconciliation are far better than another dictator.

[Ravenman]

nm

[up_the_junction]

@Ravenman

I have repeatedly said that Bush did not lie.

You can say what you like, the world knows he’s a sack of shit.

[ralph124c]

@up_the_junction

You can say what you like, the world knows he’s a sack of shit.

I fully accept that Bush was out of his mind, but bear in mind, most democrats voted for the war (including such intellectuals as HR Clinton, JF Kerry, etc.) These folks (curiously) don’t like to talk about their actions.

[Alessan]

@Ramira

This was always an american fantasy

A very ironic and empty comment coming from nationals of the country that launched the war of aggression on false pretenses against the Iraq.

to neutral parties the Iran does not look like it is asserting itself as ‘the prime regional power’ - it looks paranoid and defensive about the Wahhabite power.

the lenses of the americans are very strange in looking at the region.

Come on, Ramira. I’m not defending the Ameican invasion, but don’t portray the Iranian government as a bunch of innocents. The Saudis have as much of a right to be paranoid about the Iranian ayatollahs as the Iranians have about the Wahhabites. No to mention that the ongoing cold war between Israel and Iran (and Iran’s proxies) has nothing to do with either Wahhabites or Americans.

Also, there are no neutral parties, anywhere.

[up_the_junction]

@ralph124c

I fully accept that Bush was out of his mind, but bear in mind, most democrats voted for the war (including such intellectuals as HR Clinton, JF Kerry, etc.) These folks (curiously) don’t like to talk about their actions.

Sure, the UK Parliament also supported Tony Blair - it was a brilliant combination of smoke, mirrors and media provoked nationalism (cheese eating surrender monkeys, etc). It was very hard to oppose, and few in public life did.

[Ravenman]

@up_the_junction

You can say what you like, the world knows he’s a sack of shit.

You should just stop with comments like this that imply that you know what I think about things. I think Bush is very likely the worst president of the last century, and maybe longer.

[PatriotX]

@Dewey_Finn

How much money did the US throw at reconstruction in Iraq? I thought it was in the tens of billions. How was that not a legitimate attempt?

There was an effort to plan for the aftermath of the invasion.
It was scrapped.
Our SecDef said that we’d be out of Iraq in six-weeks, or at the outside six-months.

Money is not the same as plans or action.

[Dewey_Finn]

One of my frustrations is that infrastructure in the US is starved of needed investment, yet the US spent tens of billions overseas.

[John_Mace]

@Tamerlane

I just might disagree a tad with the degree of difficulty. I think the pessimists in this thread are a little bit too pessimistic, I think the optimists are quite a bit too optimistic.

What I’ll agree with many/most here is that the Bush administration could scarcely have done a worse job if they had tried. Everything they touched turned to shit and pre-formed ideological blinders going in was only half of it. Even supposed partial triumphs like the “Sunni Awakening” were slippery slope disasters IMHO. A modern state that doesn’t have at least a semblance of a monopoly on force is more or less a failed state. When the current Iraqi regime is dependent on military force provided by Sunni tribesmen, sectarian Shi’a militia, Kurdish Peshmerga, Iranian Pasdaran, U.S. air power and everything but the apparently hapless Iraqi regular army - you have a complete failure.

Iraq pre-Gulf War II was not a failed state. I think the odds you would have ended up with a fully functional democratic nation in the aftermath of the invasion are not great ( though not impossible ) no matter what the U.S. did. Unlike neighboring Iran, Iraq really doesn’t have a strong tradition of democratic institutions ( however flawed ) and that lack of institutional history is a hard thing to overcome. But even a semi-functional corrupt South Vietnamese-style kleptocracy would have been better than the collapsing pit of misery that is Iraq’s current configuration. That at least should have been an achievable minimum.

Thanks, Solomon.

[up_the_junction]

@Dewey_Finn

One of my frustrations is that infrastructure in the US is starved of needed investment, yet the US spent tens of billions overseas.

Hey, it’s all good - you’ve got three new aircraft carriers on the way :smack:

[Steken]

@Ryan_Liam

Iran would much prefer a Shiite/Kurd dominated client state under it’s influence than a successful democratic and cohesive Iraqi state under US domination, what surprises me is how the Bush administration were completely blind to this.

Of course Iran dislikes the idea of Iraq being “under US domination.”

That’s not the same as Iran being “determined” to see “real nation building” in Iraq fail.

I imagine the Americans and the Iranians want much the same thing from Iraq: A stable, friendly, thriving and above all loyal ally / client state / trading partner. At this point, neither country seems likely to get their wish anytime soon. Long-term, though, my money is on the Iranians.

[Ramira]

@Alessan

Come on, Ramira. I’m not defending the Ameican invasion, but don’t portray the Iranian government as a bunch of innocents. The Saudis have as much of a right to be paranoid about the Iranian ayatollahs as the Iranians have about the Wahhabites. No to mention that the ongoing cold war between Israel and Iran (and Iran’s proxies) has nothing to do with either Wahhabites or Americans.

Also, there are no neutral parties, anywhere.

I thought I had replied yesterday.

I did not say the Iranians government are innocents, they are paranoids.

It is simply the observation that Americans and their allies are quite hypocrite in this area

and I am neutral in this, I do not like either the wahhabites or the Iranians, I am even more sympathetic to the americans.

but it does not make the statement about the iranians hypocritical

[Ramira]

@Steken

Of course Iran dislikes the idea of Iraq being “under US domination.”

That’s not the same as Iran being “determined” to see “real nation building” in Iraq fail.

I imagine the Americans and the Iranians want much the same thing from Iraq: A stable, friendly, thriving and above all loyal ally / client state / trading partner. At this point, neither country seems likely to get their wish anytime soon. Long-term, though, my money is on the Iranians.

it is I think easy to see the iranian analysis as that the american project of those years was not a simple ‘nation building’ but the creation of a client state hostile to the iranians. of course no nation would be happy about such a kind of project by a hostile power, and I can just look at the way that the USA had lashed out at governments in its close neighborhood that it saw as getting clsoe to its enemy, the soviet union.

it is irrational to expect that a rational iranian government would oppose and seek to reinforce its fellow shiite allies. the idea among posters here that this was some kind of iranian aggressiveness is blind hypocrisy.